National High Court Decision 2013west 3934 ( December 30, 2013)

In case of an appeal litigation, the period of appeal shall be calculated from the earlier date of the date when a written decision is served on the accounting corporation or the date when the written decision is served on the

An accounting firm shall calculate the period of filing a lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff himself/herself has the power of representation with respect to the tax judgment, and that the calculation of the period of filing a lawsuit should be based on the date when the decision of the Tax Tribunal is notified.

Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014Guhap6470 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

○○ Metal Co., Ltd.

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

July 11, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 389,468,466 against the Plaintiff on December 20, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, established on April 19, 2012, and engaged in the precious metal wholesale business at ○○○○○○, Seoul, ○○○○-ro, and reported that the sales tax invoice of KRW 9,745,680,000, total value of supply at the time of filing the first value-added tax return in 2012, was issued to △ Metal Co., Ltd. and △△△△△△, and that the purchase tax invoice of KRW 9,759,131,320, total value of supply was received from knives Co., Ltd. and the development of the industry

B. On December 20, 2012, the Defendant issued or received sales and purchase tax invoices of KRW 19,474,81,320 (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”) in total in the first taxable period of value added tax in 2012, and received false tax invoices, and issued or notified the Plaintiff of KRW 389,468,460 for the pertinent taxable period (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff has actually purchased foreign goods from companies that he/she has become aware of through newspapers, advertisements, etc.

The Defendant’s disposition should be revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice is not true on the ground that there is a detailed statement of transactions to prove this and the details of payment, and that the instant tax invoice also contains a proper description of the transaction details, such as transaction items, transaction amount, and date and time of transaction. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice is different from the fact on the ground that an enterprise that did not directly trade with the Plaintiff was discovered as data.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 56(3) main text and Article 56(5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an administrative litigation against taxation disposition.

shall be filed within 90 days from the date the decision on the request for examination or adjudgment is notified, and the period shall be a peremptory term.

As to this case, the whole pleadings in the statements in Evidence A, Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 2

의 취지를 종합하면, ① 원고는 이 사건 처분에 불복하여 국세기본법 제66조 소정의 이의신청 절차를 거친 다음 2013년 9월 조세심판원에 같은 법 제68조, 제69조 등에 따른 심판청구를 한 사실, ② 당시 원고는 ●●회계법인(대표이사 공인회계사 이★★, 이하 '이 사건 회계법인'이라 한다)에 이 사건 처분에 관한 심사청구와 관련된 일체의 업무를 위임한다는 내용의 위임장을 제출하면서 인감증명서도 함께 첨부한 사실, ③ 조세심판원은 2013. 12. 30. 이 사건 처분에 관한 원고의 청구를 기각하는 결정을 하였고, 위 결정은 2014. 1. 2. 이 사건 회계법인의 주소지인 서울 ○○구 ○○동 ○○빌딩 8층에서 직원 양♧♧에게 송달된 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 이에 의하면 이 사건 처분에 관한 조세심판원의 결정은 2014. 1. 2. 유효하게 송달되었다고 할 것이고, 원고가 그로부터 90일이 경과한 다음날인 같은 해 4. 3.에야 비로소 이 사건 소를 제기한 사실은 기록상 명백하므로, 이 사건 소는 국세기본법 제56조 제3항이 정한 제소기간을 도과한 것으로서 부적법하다.

2) As to this, the Plaintiff only has the power to represent the tax judgment of the pertinent accounting corporation.

The plaintiff asserts that the period of filing the suit in this case should be calculated from January 6, 2014 when the decision of the Tax Tribunal was notified by the plaintiff.

Pursuant to Article 59 (1) and (4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a claimant may appoint a lawyer, certified tax accountant, or registered certified public accountant as his/her agent, and his/her agent for himself/herself.

The Tax Tribunal in receipt of a request for a judgment shall make a decision of dismissal, dismissal, revocation of disposition, etc. pursuant to Articles 81 and 65 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and notify a claimant for a judgment stating the reasons therefor.

The content and language of the relevant statutes and the system of appeal procedure against the tax imposition disposition

In light of the above, even if the Plaintiff is not eligible to act as an agent in a lawsuit against the pertinent accounting firm, it is reasonable to start from the preceding day from the date of delivery of the written decision to the pertinent accounting firm or from the date of delivery of the written decision to the Plaintiff himself/herself in the event that the Plaintiff files an appeal against it. Furthermore, as long as the service of the written decision to the instant accounting firm is lawful, even if the Plaintiff was notified of the decision after the date of the decision, it is merely a subjective circumstance that occurred between the agent in the judgment and the principal, and it cannot be a reason to justify the lapse of the period of filing a lawsuit corresponding to the peremptory term. The Plaintiff’s above assertion contrary to this, is unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

It is so decided as per Disposition.